United States v. Smith
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
680 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (2013)
- Written by Kelly Nielsen
Facts
Charles Smith (defendant) had a tough childhood. As an older adult, Smith developed several medical conditions and used a wheelchair. Smith created a fake investment scheme to defraud multiple victims out of a total of $315,020. Smith used the victims’ money to buy himself a house and a bar. Smith continued the fraudulent investment scheme for over four years before he was caught. Smith was sued by two victims and charged in federal court with fraud crimes. Smith pleaded guilty to committing wire fraud and agreed to return the victims’ original investments. Smith was able to make those payments by selling the bar, which had doubled in value. Smith kept the house, which had also appreciated. During the proceedings, Smith did not fully accept the blame, deflecting responsibility to his victims and his circumstances. He also made untrue statements under oath about his scheme and his financial status. Smith had no significant criminal history. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Smith’s sentencing range was 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment. At that time, 24 months was the average prison term for theft-related offenses for defendants who, like Smith, were aged 51 to 60 with a GED. The district court evaluated the appropriate sentence for Smith.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leichty, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

